[urn] Re: The URN:GLUE proposal

"Henry S. Thompson" <[email protected]> writes:
> Apologies for flogging a dead quadruped, but that's at least somewhat
> misleading. In November 2022 we approved, after lengthy argument which
> I lost, 'pwid', which existed solely to give authority to 3rd parties
> to wrap their URIs, which might be URNs, in a PWID, without any
> engagement with the 3rd party at all.

Comparing PWID with GLUE:  Looking at the urn:pwid registration,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-formal/pwid, there is one factor
which it seems to me makes urn:pwid less troublesome.

As a reminder, PWID URNs are names for snapshots of URIs that are
recorded in web archives, with each URN containing the domain name of
the archive, the date-time of the snapshot, and the URI of the
snapshotted resource.

The construction of PWID URNs attempts to make unique and persistent
what the the snapshotted URI references; it is more robust in those
regards than the underlying URI.

(Although I have to retract this claim somewhat:  PWID assumes that the
archive-domain "acts like an archive", in that once it records some
resources as a snapshot for a particular URI and date-time, it will
never record a *different* resource for that URI and date-time.)

In this dimension, GLUE URNs are entirely dependent on the incorporated
identifier systems to enforce uniqueness and persistence.

Dale

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]